Basically the law is a fuck you to all the gold digging whores and bitches . And we are heading in the opposite direction. Damn , the chinese are very pragmatic when dealing with these affairs.

Click to expand...

This will definitely stop the gold diggers but don't you think it disincentivizes children and procreation greatly? I think it will lead to more DINK couples. Because the woman needs to be career-focused now, and she would not want to give up precious years of her career, which will eventually lead to her losing out in the corporate race. Kids would be a lower priority for her now.

While this disincentivizes gold diggers, it also disincentivizes kids and child upbringing. Two sides of the coin, so to speak.

^^Not really. Women need children to take care of them in their future. So they are going to get children no mater what. Also, its not like the women are not going to have tens or huindreds of babies anyway. At max, they will have 2 kids. So career is no big deal. All this law does is make the women pay for their choice of divorce. and in all fairness it is correct even from a moral pov. Its not like women are taking care of some other woman's child. Its actually shameful that the feminist * want to give gold medals for the women for taking care of their children which is their fucking job. All the women in home does for the family is give sex for the husband and take care of the home. Husband pays for the sex and the food they eat. By this logic alone , women have no right to claim anything from what the husband earned.

But, lets look at the way the things were looking previously.by making the laws skewered against men, the previous laws were actually disincentivising men from participating less and less in family and their desire to have childrten. After all, what good is marriage if the only end goals of marriage- sex and kids are fgoing to be taken away from you? This is wjhy so many men are not marrying in the west and are even going MGTOW there/

BTW, the difference between the two paras is because of the difference in biology. A man can and will produce kids when he is in his 50s, women cant. Men can work on te very day he becomes a father, women cant. We cant make two things which are unequal to be equal just for the sake of it. Will you guys punish a fast sprinter in a race among two unequal competitors, for the sake of achieving e2uality?

And since women have a bilogical clock in them, which means they are useless as reproducing members of the society by 40+ and men dont, this actually forces women to enter marriage early. stay with the children and the families to a large extend. This has an added benefit that their off spring does not become criminals of the society. Fatherless children become the worst criminals of the society. Just look at the crime data of USA. blacks there are criminals compared to whites because black women have more out of wedlock children/have higher single mom % .

The only thing which 9is negative about this law is that it acknowledges the inherent differences men and women have and their different roles they play in the society

1. But, lets look at the way the things were looking previously.by making the laws skewered against men, the previous laws were actually disincentivising men from participating less and less in family and their desire to have childrten. After all, what good is marriage if the only end goals of marriage- sex and kids are fgoing to be taken away from you? This is wjhy so many men are not marrying in the west and are even going MGTOW there/

2. The only thing which 9is negative about this law is that it acknowledges the inherent differences men and women have and their different roles they play in the society

1. There are lots of reasons for low tfr, in west - 1. Feminism and loss of family values, 2. Socialist welfare state making children unimportant as a security in old age, 3. Relentless propaganda in media on why staying married and staying home and having children is uncool for women as opposed to career for instance etc.